Another open-core project rejecting PR citing paid feature

https://github.com/ToolJet/ToolJet/pull/2303

by landingarea • 2 years ago

20 17 2 years ago

github.com

caesil• 2 years ago

Well, they actually cite technical reasons:

there will be a conflict in the architecture

Title makes it sound like they reject paid features out of hand.

duncan-donuts• 2 years ago

Idk if I’d take that explanation at face value.

I’m trying to recall a time in my career where I’ve heard this phrase and it was actually a technical problem. Most of the time this is a dismissive response that is more political than it is technical. And let’s be honest — we’re the ones inventing the architecture of the applications. If a feature is desired but it “conflicts with the architecture” then you figure out how to resolve the conflict.

evanelias3• 2 years ago

The full sentence was "However, ToolJet enterprise edition already has this feature and there will be a conflict in the architecture if we merge this PR."

That explanation seems completely reasonable to me. Why should they maintain 2 different implementations of the same feature, 1 of which they didn't write in-house? Why should they spend time reviewing and merging something contributed by a third party who couldn't be bothered to read or follow their CONTRIBUTING.md, let alone something that hurts their own bottom line?

kelnos3• 2 years ago

They already have the feature implemented, in their paid Enterprise Edition. Why would they accept an outside contribution for code they've already written? If they want it in the community edition, they'd just add their own implementation, and then not have two different implementations of the same feature to maintain. That sounds exactly like "not fitting into the architecture".

Regardless, they are not obligated to accept any contribution that they don't want, for whatever reason, even if that reason is "profit" and "business model".

kamikaz1k• 2 years ago

…author took on issue without engaging with maintainers first, and is incorporating paid features, and it was 2 years ago…

cosmicradiance• 2 years ago

Open source; Closed contribution

latenightcoding• 2 years ago

I don't see the problem here

kelnos3• 2 years ago

So what? That's the business model they've chosen; it's their repository, and no one is entitled to merge things in.

If people care that much, they can maintain a fork, and add the features they want. If the fork ends up becoming more popular, it will end up with more contributors and become the de-facto main repo.

Yes, this potential contributor ended up having their time wasted, but they clearly didn't read the instructions for contributors, which asks contributors to open an issue first to discuss the planned feature. If they'd done that, then they wouldn't've wasted time.

tommiegannert• 2 years ago

Someone is out to paint open-core in a bad light. But what's the solution, when you've been told "won't happen, because it's how we make money?" Unless you give them money, no amount of HN venting will change that.

Perhaps contributing extension points and a plugin system? Would tooljet et al. say no to that? Modularity is generally considered a good thing.

Another open-core project rejecting PR citing paid feature

Related Stories